Comments on: Deep Thought Thursday: The price of viewing a masterpiece

By: Marie Kazalia

Marie Kazalia — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:02:59 +0000

The Mona Lisa was in the USA and at my art museum (I called the museum, mine– I took children’s art classes there). There was a small fee to see Mona and she was only on view for one weekend. The crowd around the painting was so tight a small child could not squeeze in–I tried. As an adult I visited Paris and made a point of finally getting a look at the Mona Lisa.

By: Paying extra for viewing a single masterpiece — Art Biz Blog

Paying extra for viewing a single masterpiece — Art Biz Blog — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:33:23 +0000

[...] the last Deep Thought Thursday I asked if you would pay $17 to see a single painting. I purposely did not provide arguments before [...]

By: Nancy Wylie

Nancy Wylie — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:57:41 +0000

Can you imagine how long the wait would be to see this work? If everybody had to pay that amount just to see one piece of art, they would all want to just stand there for as long as possible just to get their money’s worth!

By: Burnell Yow!

Burnell Yow! — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:20:25 +0000

You’d be better served by taking the $17 and spending it on art supplies or putting it toward an Alyson Stanfield seminar. I’ve never understood the desire or need to see a specific work of art in person, anyway. I mean the kind of desire to stand in line for hours, to pay a fee, just to be in the presence of what critics or historians presently deem an “important” work – unless, of course, you are studying the work prior to copying it. We are surrounded by beauty and numerous acts of creation. Inspiration is everywhere. Take the $17 and go for lunch at a local cafe. Take your sketchbook. Draw.

By: Sheila Mahanke Barnes

Sheila Mahanke Barnes — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:09:59 +0000

If you’d just take the time to follow the link, a lot of your questions would be answered. Museum members also get a free showing in addition to children under 17.

From the website: “To ensure an optimal viewing experience, The Woman with a Veil will be displayed in a gallery with no more than 25 people allowed access at any given time. Text panels, audio and video presentations, and public programs will provide insight into Renaissance art, portraiture, and the artist. A publication will accompany the exhibition…Tickets are timed for entry every 30 minutes.”

Having just been to an exhibit at this museum, I can attest to the quality of their presentations. Would I pay that much extra for this one painting under these conditions? I think it is a personal thing – to some this painting would not be that important. To some art students or painters, maybe this is indeed an opportunity of a lifetime worth the $17. I don’t think I can find fault with the museum for setting this up this way. These are hard times calling for innovative approaches to keep art of all kinds available to the public.

By: Jim Mossman

Jim Mossman — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:00:51 +0000

The museum’s endowment is probably down and this is a way to bring in funds. And yes, the costs of getting the painting here (and later returning it) are huge. However, I agree with what most others have said here. They simply haven’t offered enough.

The Whitney Gallery of Art (part of the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY) celebrated its 50th by doing a major renovation of the museum and keynoting the reopening with a display of Moran’s second “Grand Canyon Of The Yellowstone”. This painting is 9 by 14 feet. This is on loan from the Smithsonian and, if I remember correctly, the costs associated with getting and returning it are over $100,000. These as well as all the Whitney renovation costs were covered with private donations.

By: becky nielsen

becky nielsen — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:12:41 +0000

It does seem to emphasize the financial problems that museums must be experiencing to bring “new” work to their audiences. And it does seem that people with limited means are going to get squeezed out – which doesn’t feel right at all.

I’m in the tea party/lecture camp – charge $35 for people who want something more than just a walkby.

By: Walter Hawn

Walter Hawn — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:02:18 +0000

I’m constantly reminded by my 23yo daughter that my pricing nerve lives in 1968. With that in mind, $12 museum admission is really $1.95, and $17 extra is really $2.76, making a total of $4.71 in 1968 dollars. (worth $6.15 each today)

The combined price is close to 1% of median personal gross monthly income (2006=$2700)

I would expect that the surcharge would automatically filter out many viewers and would allow a more leisurely examination of the painting, without more effort from the museum. It’s possible that regular visitation will increase, even though many of the additional visitors will probably not pay the surcharge.

For myself, I wouldn’t pay extra to see this painting, but I would to see Picasso’s “Guernica.”

By: Jim Mossman

Jim Mossman — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:45:30 +0000

The Whitney Gallery of Art (Part of the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY) got Moran’s later Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone on loan from the Smithsonian. The painting is 9 by 14 FEET! I believe it cost at least $100,000 to prepare for moving, transport, ship, insure and install (and later go back). They raised all the money for this with private donations.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 23:11:29 +0000

Not to me. I think they will accomplish one of two things (besides the publicity). First: they will gain some revenue – enough to cover expenses? Who knows. Second: they will effectively close-out the less financially able from enjoying the experience. This seems like an attempt to further define seperate classes in a country that is meant to be (if rhetoric is to be believed) rather more egalitarian that that.

Someone else may find the price worthy, but I do not. For that I want dinner and possibly my laundry folded.